A Gift from the Progressives? Or no?
I'm torn.
A couple podcasts back, John Yoo laments the 17th Amendment, a product of the Progressive Era that established the direct election of senators, who had previously been appointed by state legislatures. Yoo opposes it on the same grounds outlined by Paul Rahe in his Uncommon Knowledge appearance one year ago. The 17th Amendment, says Rahe, "decouples the federal government from state government," whereas prior to this innovation states had "a kind of leverage within the federal government that protects state prerogatives and allows federalism to live on and on and on." Great point, no?
And yet...
Daniel Hannan, in his book The New Road to Serfdom (and also in his recent appearance on Uncommon Knowledge), champions the uniquely American primary system, in which the citizens themselves choose candidates. As long as open primaries exist, he says, "no politician can afford to forget his electorate," but without them a politician answers to party leaders, not his electorate, and "the skewing of incentives contributes to the creation of a political caste." So Hannan, too, has a point, no?
As it happens, Hannan himself seems to be of two minds, since later in his book he offers a brief criticism of the 17th Amendment, using Yoo- and Rahe-ish reasoning, but without reconciling it with his earlier praise of the primary system. Perhaps he regards the Senate as a needed exception, but he doesn't elaborate.
So I'll leave it to Ricochet. The 17th Amendment: Yay, or nay? But before you answer--and this is particularly addressed to the RINO-slayers among us--recall those insurgent Senate candidates this year: Rubio, Angle, Miller, O'Donnell, and many more. We might have had only one or two--and very possibly none--without that much-reviled Progressive Era innovation.
- Comment (20)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
May '10
Re: A Gift from the Progressives? Or no?
I have mixed feelings about this, but when in doubt go with what the Founding Fathers intended. They had almost future vision and saw the true nature of humans and the pitfalls of government and created a document around it. They were miraculously enlightened.
Jul '10
Re: A Gift from the Progressives? Or no?
I've made my peace with the 17th, Scott. Probably it's a net negative, but the upside to its repeal seems microscopic.
Insofar as state legislatures would demand more local accountability from Senators... well, isn't that just a recipe for even more porktacular governance?
Honestly, we have zero chance on this anyway. My bet is that the president is elected by popular vote by 2020.
Now, if we could ditch the 16th...
May '10
Re: A Gift from the Progressives? Or no?
Rubio was Speaker of the House in Florida. Everyone knew who he was and with either methodology would have likely been the nominee or appointed Senator. The system as the Founding Fathers envisioned it would never have chosen O'Donnell and, possibly, not have chosen Angle. Rob Portman is a better example of our current system functioning well. He was elected in spite of what the state legislature would have appointed.
May '10
Re: A Gift from the Progressives? Or no?
Not sure about Rubio, Andrea. Maybe he would've had a fighting chance pre-17th, for the reason you say, but I'd still put it well below 50% since Crist was the safe, well-connected candidate, and the bottom-up, citizen-centered groundswell for Rubio might never have materialized without an empowered electorate.
Also, I forgot to mention Rand Paul, a dynamo who I'm sure we'd all agree wouldn't have had a snowball's chance.
May '10
Re: A Gift from the Progressives? Or no?
Palaeologus:
[...]Honestly, we have zero chance on this anyway.[...]
True, this is one of those fun-but-probably-moot topics. But it's the irony of the thing that is so interesting to me: that the Progressives might have been too smart by half and undermined their craved-for governing class.
Jul '10
Re: A Gift from the Progressives? Or no?
Remember that one of the most gripping election contests in American history was Lincoln versus Douglas to be senator from Illinois...a seat that was of course voted on by the legislature. In effect, pre-17th amendment, a senatorial campaign could decide the direction of the state legislature. This I think made the state legislature and local politics as important to people as Federal politics; which is a good thing. I'd like to be more concerned about who my mayor (or state assemblyman) is than who's my senator.
Jul '10
Re: A Gift from the Progressives? Or no?
BTW, if you want to read a book that revels in both the ideas of Lincoln-Douglas, as well as in political elections as the greatest American game, read Alan Guelzo's Lincoln and Douglas: The Debate That Changed America. Guelzo is also an excellent writer, a clever and charming man, and a conservative.
Re: A Gift from the Progressives? Or no?
Before the 17th amendment, a number of states had already, in effect, set up a system of direct election. (I'm foggy on the historical details here, I admit, but see Robert Barraud Taylor's post above.) Voters would vote, just as they do now. Then the state legislature would, in effect, ratify the popular vote, just as (more or less) the electoral college ratifies the presidential vote every four years. The state legislatures always retained the option of adjusting the rules--or, for that matter, of refusing to ratify the popular vote, instead choosing someone else. Retaining that right kept the state legilsatures in the game, making them permanently relevant.
My guess? If we repealed the 17th amendment, virtually every state would adopt a system of this kind, retaining a dominant popular element in the selection of senators, but giving the state legislatures a new, and central, role.
And that would be a Good Thing.
Edited on Nov 22, 2010 at 1:11pmMay '10
Re: A Gift from the Progressives? Or no?
I have mixed feelings, too. Ultimately, I think Professor Rahe's argument is correct and has much to recommend it. On the other hand, the founders did provide for an amendment process as the way to deviate from their original intent if we so desire. I also think we need to consider the practical reality that but for the direct election of Senators -
- Scott Brown would still be a state legislator;
- Jim DeMint would still be a Congressman or running his marketing company in Greenville, SC;
- Marco Rubio's climb would have been even steeper;
- North Carolina (North Carolina!) elected its first majority Republican legislature since Reconstruction not yet three weeks ago;
- Ron Johnson wouldn't have had a chance;
- Illinois - no way;
- Rand Paul (assuming he's your cup of tea) would have been dead in the water; and
- Blanche Lincoln would have had a shot.
Oct '10
Re: A Gift from the Progressives? Or no?
Peter... You have the best balance here. Yes, the popular vote for senator within the structure of the state as an independent player in the federal system. With the legislature having the Constitutional rule setting role, the state can balance the popular election against the interests of the state as an entity. Perhaps a system where the state legislature has 50% of the electoral weight, and the popular vote the other 50%, or combination thereof. In the end, the Senate, constituting 100 actors, beholden in pairs to one of 50 states interests, would go a long way to keeping Uncle Sam in his place. And, Marco Rubio would indeed have been possible, given the conservative move found in a great many of the states in the past election. Now. how can we get it done??
May '10
Re: A Gift from the Progressives? Or no?
I'm with Daniel Hannan as reported by Scott (got to get a hold of that book). I prefer the primary systems as open as possible.
The founder's fear of the "mob", or more generously, of the passionate public, has been replaced in in my mind with a fear of a venial and driven political class. Anything that concentrates power into a few gives them a way to weasel in their influence and subvert democracy.
In other words, we are forced to trust the state legislatures with control of the states, but to allow them any influence over the federal legislature is too tempting, and likely to mis-fire.
May '10
Re: A Gift from the Progressives? Or no?
Scott Reusser
Not sure about Rubio, Andrea. Maybe he would've had a fighting chance pre-17th, for the reason you say, but I'd still put it well below 50% since Crist was the safe, well-connected candidate, and the bottom-up, citizen-centered groundswell for Rubio might never have materialized without an empowered electorate.
Also, I forgot to mention Rand Paul, a dynamo who I'm sure we'd all agree wouldn't have had a snowball's chance. · Nov 21 at 9:06pm
You may be right about Rubio, Scott. Good point.
May '10
Re: A Gift from the Progressives? Or no?
Peter Robinson: [...]Voters would vote, just as they do now. Then the state legislature would, in effect, ratify the popular vote, just as (more or less) the electoral college ratifies the presidential vote every four years. The state legislatures always retained the option of adjusting the rules--or, for that matter, of refusing to ratify the popular vote, instead choosing someone else.[...]
My guess? If we repealed the 17th amendment, virtually every state would adopt a system of this kind[...]
Thanks everyone for the responses.
The arrangement Peter describes here sounds just about perfect, though it might set up some rather interesting confrontations with the Tea Party in certain extraordinary circumstances.
It is a great book (and a quick read). I want to be careful, though, not to misrepresent Hannan's position, since, while praising the primary system in general terms, he does scold the Progressives for the 17th. I just thought his arguments for primaries and direct elections were the most eloquent.
Jul '10
Re: A Gift from the Progressives? Or no?
Scott, as I watched the Uncommon Knowledge interview I was also very struck by Hannan's praise for the primary system. Like many Americans, when praised by a nice Brit with his cute little accent I blush a bit, say "aw shucks" and feel pretty good about myself and my nation.
But as I brood about it, I am less persuaded that it has been primary elections that have produced the effect that Hannan admires. After all, primary elections as we know them only began to have an effect with the 1952 New Hampshire primary; and they became binding only in 1972.
So what produced this effect before that relatively recent date? It seems to me that it was the federal system itself. No party could be a truly national party without reconciling the interests of states and of regions. It was impossible for any one boss to run the whole show; it required multiple bosses, which might not be a progressive dream, but certainly was unlike the unitary party machine one finds in Britain today. Of course if this is true, then this should be true for a federal republic like Germany...
May '10
Re: A Gift from the Progressives? Or no?
Robert Barraud Taylor:
[...]But as I brood about it, I am less persuaded that it has been primary elections that have produced the effect that Hannan admires. After all, primary elections as we know them only began to have an effect with the 1952 New Hampshire primary; and they became binding only in 1972.
I'm only now realizing just how ignorant I am on all this. When did primaries become the norm for House members? Was that such a recent development as well?...because those closer-to-the-people pols are what I think Hannan is most concerned with.
Jun '10
Re: A Gift from the Progressives? Or no?
As Peter alluded to, there was already a trend towards effectively popularly electing Senators without the amendment. I believe it would have been preferable if states had been left to deal with any indirect election issues on their own - there was no obstacle to state parties establishing a de facto direct election within their states as was done with the “Oregon Plan” for instance - legislative candidates were required to sign one of two statements before running for office, one pledging the candidate to vote for whomever the population voted for in a state-wide primary, the other that the candidate would not so pledge, retaining discretion to vote for whomever he desired. As Robert pointed out, such a set up assisted in keeping people equally plugged into both state and federal politics, in addition to the benefits laid out in Federalist 51 for keeping the two houses "as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit". The progressive era was too quick to shake off some very prudent, if imperfect, guardians to representative balance imo. Recommend Rossum's "Federalism, The Supreme Court, and the 17th Amendment"
Edited on Nov 22, 2010 at 9:55pmMay '10
Re: A Gift from the Progressives? Or no?
Matthew Gilley: I have mixed feelings, too. Ultimately, I think Professor Rahe's argument is correct and has much to recommend it. On the other hand, the founders did provide for an amendment process as the way to deviate from their original intent if we so desire. I also think we need to consider the practical reality that but for the direct election of Senators -
[SNIP]
- North Carolina (North Carolina!) elected its first majority Republican legislature since Reconstruction not yet three weeks ago;
[SNIP]
· Nov 22 at 1:25pm
Matthew Gilley tees up the point I dwell on when considering repeal of the 17th Amendment, and that detail can be covered in two words: Jesse Helms. Having lived in NC since I first was old enough to vote - the year Helms was first elected to the Senate - I have to say I doubt he gets there by Legislative appointment. Which might well mean no 1976 Ronald Reagan victory in NC and thus no 1980 Reagan presidency.
Or maybe Helms doesn't leave the Democratic Party, that being his only route to Senatorship. As Grandfather wondered in Peter & the Wolf: what then?
Jun '10
Re: A Gift from the Progressives? Or no?
Hannan is right and Yoo is right. The House was set up with a plebiscite where the people could change their minds every two years, the Senate was set up to be made up of members chosen by the states to sit for 6 years for stability. That is a perfect balance. Now both bodies gang up to increase federal power because both are driven by the same popular passions.
The 17th Amendment was a mistake, but probably uncorrectable.
Jul '10
Re: A Gift from the Progressives? Or no?
Scott Reusser
When did primaries become the norm for House members? Was that such a recent development as well?...because those closer-to-the-people pols are what I think Hannan is most concerned with. · Nov 22 at 8:44pm
Errr...I'm pretty ignorant of anything after 1865, and tend not to get down into these weeds when teaching American History 102. But I think the congressonal primary was another innovation of the progressives...maybe even before 1910? It was designed as I recall to break the power of Tammany Hall and other such-like organizations. Before that I think candidates were nominated or chosen by a party convention. Lincoln was chosen as Senate candidate in 1858 by a convention; congressional candidates were also selected by conventions held within districts. Those had the potential to be wonderful, New England town meeting sort of gatherings; or smoke-filled rooms.
There is no political utopia. But some things are less bad. Frankly, while I like to astonish my students by proclaiming I'm against the 17th amendment, that's just because I'm trying to shock a bunch of kids who don't even vote. Actually I'm rather conflicted.
May '10
Re: A Gift from the Progressives? Or no?
Without the 17th Amendment, would we have needed insurgent Senators?